Republican Texas lieutenant governor candidate Sen. Dan Patrick speaks during a debate at KERA studios in Dallas, Monday, Jan. 27, 2014. Four Republican candidates are vying to be Texas lieutenant governor, a post considered to be the most powerful in the state. (AP Photo/LM Otero,Pool) | ASSOCIATED PRESS

State Sen. Dan Patrick’s victory over incumbent David Dewhurst in the Republican runoff for lieutenant governor on Tuesday night came as no surprise.

And while the conciliatory tone that marked his victory speech — in which he pledged to make inroads with Hispanics — sounded nothing like the fiery immigration rhetoric voters are accustomed to, political observers say it's an approach Patrick will have to take in a general election battle against Leticia Van de Putte, a Latina state senator from San Antonio.

“Before you can get someone’s vote, you have to respect them enough to go talk with them and explain who you are,” Patrick said Tuesday after election returns showed he had overwhelmingly defeated Dewhurst. “It won’t be overnight, but it’s going to start tomorrow morning.”

Patrick’s race against Van de Putte, who has criticized the Houston senator for calling the influx of undocumented immigrants from Mexico an “illegal invasion,” could serve as a test case for both parties to gauge their outreach and appeal to an increasingly crucial voting bloc.

The state's Republican Party — which continues to inch farther right with every primary — is attempting to find its footing among Hispanics, who have so far tended to identify with the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, Democrats are turning their attention toward voter turnout. They believe Hispanics, who are expected to make up a plurality of the state population by 2020, hold the key to making Democrats competitive in this dark red state.

During the primary and runoff elections, immigration and border security were staples of Patrick’s stump speeches and debate appearances. But he drew fire from both Democrats and Republicans for his "illegal invasion" comments, and has also been quoted saying that undocumented immigrants bring “third-world diseases” like leprosy and tuberculosis into the U.S.

Van de Putte has called Patrick’s comments inappropriate and accused him of being out of touch with Hispanic voters. Following his runoff win on Tuesday, she said it was time for “politicians like Dan Patrick put their toxic rhetoric to rest.”

While some Hispanic Republicans have said they will cross over to vote for Van de Putte instead of Patrick in the general election, Hector De Leon, chairman of the Associated Republicans of Texas, predicted Patrick will recover from criticism about his remarks because the state is so reliably Republican.

But De Leon, who has referred to Patrick's “illegal invasion” remark as “thinly veiled racism,” added that Patrick’s success among Hispanic voters will depend on his ability to turn his “good words” on Tuesday “into good deeds” in the next six months.

He also said Patrick’s outreach efforts could be “too little, too late” if Van de Putte is able to raise enough money to build a narrative about him across the state. Since jumping into the race in November, she has not raised the kind of campaign cash her opponent has — though she didn't have an expensive primary battle like Patrick did. In January, the last time both candidates filed a campaign finance report, Patrick had raised three times as much money as Van de Putte.

Mark Jones, chairman of Rice University’s political science department, said Patrick’s remarks on Tuesday were a “crucial first step” toward redefining himself to the Hispanic electorate in the general election.

"Patrick has certainly lost some Hispanic voters and some more moderate Anglo voters, but he doesn’t want to lose any more," Jones said.

Patrick gave voters a glimpse of this shift in tone in April during an immigration debate with San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro. During the debate, which was broadcast on the Spanish-language channel Univision, Patrick avoided engaging in the hard-edged rhetoric he’s been called out on.

The Patrick campaign did not respond to a request for comment, but following the debate in April, Patrick consultant Allen Blakemore said the senator had not changed his tone on immigration.

Democrats largely remain skeptical; Patrick opposes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates to attend public universities. Van de Putte has been a vocal supporter of in-state tuition for undocumented students and has talked about the need for comprehensive immigration reform.

Emmanuel Garcia, communications director for the Texas Democratic Party, said that Patrick's "anti-immigrant rhetoric" helped him win the Republican nomination in the runoff, but that he now has to face Latino voters in the general election.

"Patrick can't try to tear down the Latino community and attack our families and then expect to have our support," Garcia said. "Does he think he can just disrespect us and then be welcomed at our home? That's not the way things work."

When it comes to the electoral future of both parties, the lieutenant governor’s race could ultimately prove to be an indicator. And what works in the short term — like Patrick’s rhetoric on immigration during the primary and the runoff — is often futile in a general election.

“I can certainly appreciate and understand that there will be folks who aren’t going to be very forgiving,” De Leon said. “What may be good politics today may not be good politics for the next election cycle.”

Disclosure: Rice University is a corporate sponsor of The Texas Tribune. A complete list of Texas Tribune donors and sponsors can be viewed here.

Also on The Huffington Post

Close



Controversial Immigration Laws

of





California's Proposition 187 was submitted to the voters with the full support of then Republican governor Pete Wilson. It essentially blamed undocumented immigrants for the poor performance of the state economy in the early 1990s. The law called for cutting off benefits to undocumented immigrants: prohibiting their access to health care, public education, and other social services in California. It also required state authorities to report anyone who they suspected was undocumented.
Status: The law passed with the support of 55 percent of the voters in 1994 but declared unconstitutional 1997. The law was killed in 1999 when a new governor, Democrat Gray Davis, refused to appeal a judicial decision that struck down most of the law. Even though short-lived, the legislation paved the way for harsher immigration laws to come. On the other hand, the strong reaction from the Hispanic community and immigration advocates propelled a drive for naturalization of legal residents and created as many as one million new voters.

The Arizona Act made it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to be within the state lines of Arizona without legal documents allowing their presence in the U.S. This law has been widely criticized as xenophobic and for encouraging racial profiling. It requires state authorities to inquire about an individual's immigration status during an arrest when there is "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is undocumented. The law would allow police to detain anyone who they believe was in the country illegally.
Status: The law was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. But it has generated a swirl of controversy and questions about its constitutionality. A federal judge issued a ruling that blocked what critics saw as some of the law's harshest provisions.
House: 35-31 (4/12/2011)

The controversy over Arizona's immigration law was followed by heated debate over Georgia's own law. HB 87 required government agencies and private companies to check the immigration status of applicants. This law also limited some government benefits to people who could prove their legal status.
Status: Although a federal judge temporarily blocked parts of the law considered too extreme, it went into effect on July 1st. 2011.
House: 113-56
Senate: 39-17

This bill, which was approved in 2010, bans contractors and subcontractors employ undocumented workers from having state construction contracts. The bill also protects employees who report construction sites that hire illegal workers. To ensure that contractors hire legal workers, the law requires employers to use the identification verification system E-verify, based on a compilation of legally issued Social Security numbers.
Status: Approved on June 8th 2010.
House: 188-6 (07/08/2010)
Flickr photo by DonkeyHotey

Many states tried to emulate Arizona's SB 1070 law. However, most state legislatures voted against the proposals. Utah's legislature managed to approve an immigration law based on a different argument. Taking into consideration the criticism of racial profiling in Arizona, Utah required ID cards for "guest workers" and their families. In order to get such a card workers must pay a fee and have clean records. The fees go up to $2,500 for immigrants who entered the country illegally and $1,000 for immigrants who entered the country legally but were not complying with federal immigration law, according to the LA Times.
Status: Law went into effect on 03/15/2011
House: 59-15 (03/04/2011)
Senate: 22-5 (03/04/2011)

Florida's immigration law prohibits any restrictions on the enforcement of federal immigration law. It makes it unlawful for undocumented immigrants within the state to apply for work or work as an independent contractor. It forbids employers from hiring immigrants if they are aware of their illegal status and requires work applicants to go through the E-verify system in order to check their Social Security number.
Status: effective since October 1st, 2010

The new immigration law in Alabama is considered the toughest in the land, even harder than Arizona's SB 1070.
It prohibits law enforcement officers from releasing an arrested person before his or her immigration status is determined. It does not allow undocumented immigrants to receive any state benefit, and prohibits them from enrolling in public colleges, applying for work or soliciting work in a public space. The law also prohibits landlords from renting property to undocumented immigrants, and employers from hiring them. It requires residents to prove they are citizens before they become eligible to vote. The law asked every school in the state to submit an annual report with the number of presumed undocumented students, but this part, along with others, were suspended by federal courts.
Status: Approved June 2nd, 2011
House: 73-28 (04/05/2011)
Senate: 23-11 (05/05/2011)
Flickr photo by longislandwins